Archive for April, 2011

You can’t say Idahoans opposed to the public schools overhaul bills passed this legislative session aren’t going after them aggressively: They’re running down just about every avenue of challenge available.

They’re trying to recall the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna who is principally behind them. They’re trying to recall a couple of the legislators who voted for them. They’re trying to place the measures on the ballot as a referendum, to possibly throw them out by voter action. And they’re challenging their constitutionality in court, with a lawsuit filed by leaders of the Idaho Education Association on April 27.

Any options they’ve missed?

Of course, they’re not all equally likely to succeed. The one with the best chance, though not necessarily a probability of success, is the referendum. There, the bar to ballot placement is not massively high, and if the negative public attitude really is as strong as it often seemed in recent months, and if it remains negative after more than a year of implementation (the election would be in November 2012), then the prospects for overturn are reasonable. Which is not to say it would be easy.

The recall efforts are very difficult, especially the statewide for the superintendent. And there, the greater problem isn’t even getting the recall to the ballot, so much as gathering enough votes in a special election against Luna to surpass the votes he got (in a near-landslide win) in a general election. A win there would be an extraordinary achievement.

The new lawsuit looks to fall somewhere in between. On their face, the substance of the three bills at issue don’t seem to violate the constitution. The most interesting argument for an overturn would be the “too many subjects” argument. Idaho laws are supposed to be limited to a single subject, and the argument is that at least one of the bills covered so much territory it violated that requirement. That could be so; in recent years, the Idaho Supreme Court has killed other legislation on just such grounds.

In any event, from a strategic view, there’s this: If you try everything, the odds improve that something will stick.

At Representative David Wu‘s second town hall meeting of the season, in Newberg, a considerable local political story was in the background: Wu has been described (by the Oregonian and others) of exhibiting strange behavior and driving off key staff, and the negative narrative was strong enough that last week a prominent Democrat, Brad Avakian, entered a primary contest against him.

In fielding (by my count) 14 questions from area residents, via tickets chose from a plastic container, in the course of questions mainly supportive but sometimes critical on various issues, Wu was never asked about any of those headlines or the upcoming contest, and he didn’t offer any thoughts about them. He appeared a little uneasy at times, but the questions and answers from the crowd of about 70 people were in the normal range for a congressional town hall.

Subjects? The federal budget, options for taxing and spending, and the deficit. (One questioner made clear that he likes the progressive budget plan, for which Wu has voted, and another argued that cuts have to be far more massive.) The Patriot Act and other security-related measures. Military spending and the wars. (Wu suggested that President Obama will have to come to Congress for support for ongoing activities at Libya, if still active after 60 days of engagement.) Outsourcing. Health insurance and health care (a number of individual horror stories emerging). Unemployment and the need for more job creation. Planned Parenthood spending and abortion (the second hottest topic).

Immigration (the hottest topic, sharply dividing the audience): Some people in the audience insisted that immigration laws should be enforced fully, meaning that all 13 million (or so) people in the United States illegally should be departed, immediately. Wu remained polite but his language was in sharp opposition – even were such a mass deportation possible (“Let’s be realistic about this”), he said, it would amount to “the ethnic cleansing of America.” He did turn a bit political on this (as on a few other topics), asking the anti-immigrant parts of the audience to watch and see whether the Tea Party-backed members of Congress endorse any legislation to do such a thing. He said he thought they would not.

Wu said that he plans to hold another round of town halls in the summer or fall.

Four years ago, in the case Washington v. Timothy Jorden, the Washington Supreme Court threw out a conviction because it happened after a search that was part of a broad dragnet (and had no warrant). The facts:

“In March 2003 a Pierce County deputy sheriff stopped by the Golden Lion Motel at Lakewood, whose guests over several years had a history of criminal activity. The officer was welcome, though, and his visit was not unusual, because the motel participated in a cooperative anti-crime program, part of which allowed officers to look over the guest register. The officer saw a familiar name, and in his car’s computer confirmed the hunch: Timothy Jorden, listed as a guest, was wanted on two outstanding arrest warrants. The officer called for and got backup, then knocked on the door. A woman answered; she was pulled outside. The officers entered and found Jorden in bed, and a stash of crack cocaine visible nearby. Jorden was arrested.”

The Court threw out the conviction as the result of a search and seizure beyond specific reason, the issue being “whether a random and suspicionless search of a guest registry reveals intimate details of one’s life. We first consider that here there is more information at stake than simply a guest’s registration information: an individual’s very presence in a motel or hotel may in itself be a sensitive piece of information. There are a variety of lawful reasons why an individual may not wish to reveal his or her presence at a motel.”

This site approved of the decision and the logic, although a Court critic might argue that basically bars cops from making use of motel registries. But not so. Today we have the decision In Restraint of Glenn Gary Nichols, which throws some shading on the idea.

Here’s the background of the new case. A Seattle police informant went to the home of a person in the southern part of the city to score some cocaine (with $50 of Seattle drug buy money). The seller had none but was about to get some, at a nearby motel, where her supplier was. The two of then went to the motel, where the intermediary knocked and was admitted to room 56. When she returned, cocaine was delivered to the informant. Shortly after, the informant called police with the information. Soon after that, police came to the motel and asked the desk clerk who was in room 56. The information was provided – Nichols was registered there – and when police saw him drive up to the door, they determined his identity, then arrested him (initially for a driving-related offense, later on drugs).

Naturally, the Jorden decision came up, and was central, as appeals in the case arose. Here is what the Supreme Court said about it in the new case:

“A fair reading of our opinion in Jorden is that motel guest registries are ‘private affairs’ only to a limited extent. Indeed, in Jorden we recognized that in prior cases we have recognized that hotel or motel guest registries were not historically considered private when police officers had an individualized and particularized suspicion regarding a guest. Such a tiered understanding of what is a private affair under article I, section 7 of our state constitution is not without precedent. In a number of cases we have expressed displeasure at random and suspicionless searches, “fishing expeditions,” while at the same time recognizing that searches of the same person or property with individualized suspicion can pass constitutional muster. In that regard, see, e.g., City of Seattle v. Mesiani (1988), in which this court held that a program involving “random” road block sobriety checkpoints violated article I, section 7 because it lacked particularized and individualized suspicion, and York v. Wahkiakum School District No. 200 (2008), in which we struck down a school district’s program of urinalysis drug testing of student athletes where the testing was done without any individualized suspicion of drug use.”

In this case, in other words, they had a specific drug buy, and they had room 56. A lot different from rousting random motel guests.

Idaho’s Second District congressman, Republican Representative Mike Simpson, is visiting northern Idaho over the next few days and people of all political persuasions ought welcome him.

On April 28 the seven-term House of Representatives member had planned to tour Shoshone County to observe why so many residents are justifiably concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency’s $1.2 billion, 100-year Phase II clean-up plan. Residents wanted him to see firsthand the excessive intrusion of federal bureaucrats, who in their zeal to eradicate the last small increment of historical pollution, are threatening the ability of the region’s rebounding mining industry to survive.

Out of deference to the family of the miner killed in the accident at Mullan’s Lucky Friday Mine he understandably postponed that portion of his north Idaho visit.

The visit of the former Blackfoot dentist and Speaker of the Idaho House is important because he now chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee which oversees the purse strings for the Department of the Interior and for the Environmental Protection Agency.

From that position alone, he exerts influence, already signaling to EPA that there is a new sheriff in town who will stand up to an agency that many believe is out of control and oblivious to the damage it does to legitimate businesses, small and large.

Many consider Simpson to be the single-most effective member of the House this state ever sent to Washington because he knows how to get things done legislatively, knows he is elected to solve problems, and knows that compromise is not a dirty word.

He is a fiscal conservative, but not an ideologue who believes it is his way or the highway. He is not someone who votes “no” simply to take a blindly stupid stand to create a temporary headline somewhere.

He is what the late Arizona congressman, Mo Udall, would have called a workhorse, not a showhorse. The two of them would have gotten along well because just as Udall worked well with the late Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona for their constituents, so Simpson works well with Democrats.

Exhibit A is the pain-staking, 10-year process to come up with a compromise that will provide Idaho’s majestic White Clouds and Boulder Mountains with the wilderness designation they merit. In leading the effort, Simpson gained respect from environmentalists and conservatives alike for the even-handed way in which he worked with all interest groups to devise balanced solutions. Continue Reading »

From Politics 101, a few basic principles. Elections are about incumbents more than they are about challengers. Incumbents usually have a fairly definite corps of supporters. Challengers, as a total, therefore have a limited pool to draw from; the more challengers deeply divide the anti-incumbent vote, the more likely the incumbent is to win. A weak incumbent may lose to a single challenger; two reasonable strong challengers in the field greatly improves the incumbent’s odds (excepting in cases of runoffs).

That has relevance in the case of the Oregon 1st district, where incumbent Democrat David Wu is facing a strong challenge from state Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, who announced last week. (One indicator: Facebook page is up to 845.) If those two are in the Democratic primary, Wu may lose to Avakian. If more strong candidates appear, Wu may prevail.

It’s a basic calculus that probably has been on the minds of quite a few Democrats – and Republicans, since a weakened Democratic nominee could open the seat for a Republican candidate.

The point is spelled out with more detail in a Jon Isaacs piece on Blue Oregon, noting as well that several other Democrats are also considering entering the 1st district race. If you see fast moves by Avakian in the next couple of weeks, toward gathering endorsements and support, bear this in mind: His chances may depend heavily o whether any of those other prospects in fact jump in.

It may look a little plain, but just how much are you willing to shell out of your pocket for a prettier design? If it works – if it gets traffic movig at a better speed – at a lower price, most people are probably going to be satisfied. Or at least accepting.

This is the design the Washington and Oregon governors, Chris Gregoire and John Kitzhaber, released on April 25. If as billed it has a good chance of getting built at somewhere close to budget, it will be noted as a major positive development.

That of course may be a while coming. Ground isn’t supposed to be broken until sometime in 2013, and you could expect a couple of more years to pass before the whole of it is done. But you have to start somewhere.

Several weeks ago, I had a brief conversation with the city manager of our little Southern Oregon community. He’s an affable fellow, who’s earned high marks for his job performance. He’s well-schooled in city affairs and dealing with city officials. I told him of a bill in the Michigan Legislature, at that time, that concerned me. I thought it might concern him. A “heads up” if you will.

The bill in question would authorize Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to send one of his self-appointed “financial managers” into any Michigan city of his choosing. It allowed that “manager” to remove the elected mayor and city council from any authority whatsoever, leaving them with no power to do anything. Further, the “manager” could unilaterally break any contact with any entity, void any agreements with city employees or anyone else and take any action he deemed necessary for any reason. Or no reason. Power unrestricted. He’d be God.

Neutering elected officials really bothers me. I thought it would bother our city manager, too. It apparently didn’t. His response was something like “Well, that’s interesting.” Conversation over.

This week, the Washington Legislature, having run out of time – as so often it does – in its short regular session, will return for a special.

Not so terribly special, really. Their job (still fairly complex) is to pass a budget, and adjust a series of laws that the budget affects. But revenue increases? Evidently not on the table – and that (the debate over that, anyway) is what should probably be a genuine cause for an overage.

How about this for a closing line: “In other words, in his zeal to strike a political blow again President Obama’s most important accomplishment, [Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch”] Otter has endangered the health of over more than 200,000 Idahoans and forced financial ruin upon his state.”

What? Could such a statement be justifiable?

On April 20, Otter vetoed the “son of nullification” bill (House Bill 298), which was aimed at blocking Idaho from going along with any provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. His reason was not its near-certain unconstitutionality, but rather that the state might not be able to set up a health insurance exchange. Not to disappoint the backers of the bill, however, he issued an executive order saying that “No executive branch department, agency, institution or employee of the State” could take any action toward implementing the ACA.

Circle back to a letter dated February 8 from the Idaho Attorney General’s office, on the subject of ACA nullification. It cautioned about such an attempt’s “effect on existing and future Idaho participation in the Medicaid Program. As a purely voluntary program, Idaho’s refusal to comply with the expanded provisions within the PPACA could potentially result in Idaho exiting the program and losing the existent federal matching funds. This could create a situation where individuals presently covered would no longer be covered, yet still require medical treatment, which likely would be required to be provided for and paid for through some non-federal means. This situation, in turn, could create an intense burden on the State’s budget. In sum, the Legislature may wish to consider whether its adoption of RS 20315 has the practical and legal effect of opting Idaho out of Medicaid and its attendant federal funding.”

Good-bye as much as a billion dollars for treating the ill in Idaho. The choice presumably, unless a waiver were allowed (by Otter), would be to raise state taxes by a billion dollars or let about 223,000 people reliant on public health funding sicken and die. (Considering that this is Idaho 2011, which of the two scenarios would seem more probable?)

The national political web site ThinkProgress (the source of the quote up top) argued, “Otter’s executive order forbids state agencies from implementing “any provisions” of the ACA, and it provides that “[n]o executive branch department, agency, institution or employee of the State shall accept or expend federal funds to implement the provisions of the []ACA.” The reason why this is problematic is because, starting in 2014, the ACA requires states participating in the Medicaid program to offer health coverage to all persons under the age of 65 who earn up to 133% of the poverty rate. In return for expanding Medicaid, the federal government will provide each state with the lion’s share of the funds required to do so. Otter’s order forbids his state from complying with these new requirements to remain in the Medicaid program, and it also forbids Idaho from taking the federal funds that will allow it to pay for expanding Medicaid.”

Did your employer tell you who to vote for in last November’s elections?

Employees of Koch Industries – that is, the Koch brothers who have picked up the spotlight of late – were so informed. At least in Washington state, and presumably elsewhere as well.

The Nation magazine got hold of a mailer on the subject sent last October to Koch employees (in Washington they would include employees of such businesses as Georgia-Pacific). Although a preface notes that “it is the policies and actions of politicians – not their personalities or political parties – that matter most,” political party does seem to matter: Every endorsed candidate in the brochure was a Republican.

What’s that old saying about facts and folks tendency to believe what they say even though it just ain’t so? Or that other expression: “denial is not just a river in Egypt.”

Both phrases should come to mind as any thinking person reads Governor C. L. “Butch” Otter’s recent post-session comments. He gave the just concluded session of the Idaho Legislature a letter grade of A. Seriously, Governor? Can you be that far removed from reality?

Many Idahoans like the Governor. His ability to discharge the duties of the office, however, is deplorable. He is doing serious long-term damage to the state and its citizenry. Most thoughtful Idahoans never dreamed it could be this bad. I sure didn’t. Where to begin?

How about the incredible insult to all Idahoans by signing the bill that paid the Republican Party $100,000 of your tax dollars to cover the Republican Party’s legal fees to overturn the state’s primary law and deny independents, as well as other mug-wumps sitting on the political fence the chance to vote in the GOP primary?

If the Democratic Party had brought such a suit and won, he would have gone stratospheric. He knows it. You know it. Apparently he doesn’t subscribe to the axiom about what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?

Or how about his lame reasoning on signing the legislation that added “emergency clauses” to the educational reform bills State Schools Superintendent Tom Luna and he pushed through the Legislature? These “leaders” of the people believe citizens shouldn’t be given 60 days to get signatures on petitions to establish a referendum that aims to overturn their questionable “reforms.”

Thus, the self-described penny-pinching Republicans once again will have wasted precious state dollars, but who’s watching and who cares? They are the super-majority and believe they can do as they please because they are never wrong.

The biggest canard the Governor uttered though, was saying his proudest achievement was balancing the budget without raising taxes. Seriously, Governor? You well know that one of the fallouts of your draconian, fear-based budgeting is that most school districts around the state will seek over-ride levies to make up for funding losses.

That’s a tax increase, pure and simple. You are responsible for that, and you ought to be man enough to own up to it. Your actions are going to result in more money being taken out of most every taxpayer’s pockets for a service the Constitution mandates be the priority for the state. Don’t play games. Don’t parse words like a Bill Clinton. You fool no one but yourself — and maybe not even that. Continue Reading »

Interested in a statistical chart of who’s most conservative in the Idaho Legislature – and what conservatism currently is taken to mean in Idaho?

Here’s a pretty good one-page chart, showing how Idaho legislators voted on a collection of flashpoint issues in the last session (with session rankings for 2010 and for career included), courtesy of the Idaho Conservative blog.

Neither the descriptions of issues (or, certainly, the stance on them) that the blog takes would be the same as ours, but you can easily work out what’s under discussion. And then you can discuss.

We got the word on Sunday night about Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian talking, this morning, about whether he will run for Congress. Sounded like a last-minute deal; maybe he’d be announcing an exploratory committee. The campaign semi-apologized for the late word, and the room it had obtained for the announcement was small, suggesting they didn’t expect much of a crowd.

The indicators were misleading. Avakian turned out to be all in – this was an announcement that he’s running for the House seat held now held by fellow Democrat David Wu. He had campaign staff at the read, even a campaign logo on the handouts – and a large stack of envelopes of campaign contributions. And the small room was packed with 60 or so people; discounting for maybe a dozen media types, that was a fairly large and enthusiastic turnout for a primary challenge.

He had a solid group of endorsers present, including Metro President Tom Hughes (there was a cute story about how Hughes was teaching the high school class where Avakian met his wife), and Roy Jay, the president of the area African American Chamber of Commerce. And, maybe most notable (in this challenge to Wu), Stephen Ying, executive director of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. A longish list of endorsers also included people like House Majority Leader Dave Hunt and a number of local government officials. Such a long roster of endorsers isn’t usual for an in-party challenger of an incumbent officeholder.

But the situation is unusual. Wu has had a series of personal problems and incidents over the last year or so, unusual or hard-to-explain behavior, and a high number of departures of key staff, and all of it very visibly reported (especially in the Oregonian). He has made little progress since putting those concerns to rest. The Avakian announcement was a clear indicator that many of the leading Democrats in the area aren’t conmfortable with Wu continuing as the 1st district flagbearer.

Ad the early announcement sounds like a signal that many of them have decided to sign on with Avakian, probably foreclosing the possibility of a splintered field of major challengers.

Avakian and his endorsers didn’t much mention Wu at all, saying only that the district was in need of “tough and effective” representation, not just the right decisions on floor votes. (Probably wouldn’t be a lot of daylight between Avakian and Wu on those.) The closest to a shot at Wu was when Avakian said he planned to hold plenty of meetings around the district, everyone was welcome and “you won’t need an appointment” – a reference to Wu’s recent one-by-one, by-appointment series of meetings with constituents.

The decision not to has on Wu at the announcement, or likely in upcoming events, is easy enough to understand: Avakian is seeking support from many of the same people who have been voting for Wu, and wants to talk about his own agenda, which he outlined effectively this morning. There’s also the possibility that Wu might opt out if he isn’t pushed too hard (though his recent announcement of substantial campaign contributions last quarter would argue against any soon opt-out).

That kind of a hard to head may be coming, though. Avakian is now asking his fellow Democrats to fire the Democrat who has represented them in Congress for more than a decade. At some point, if Wu stays in, he’s going to have to deeper into the sticky question of why they should do that.

Saturday’s last of the road trip public hearings on Oregon redistricting brought to mind an old newspaper story.

Some years ago the company that owned the two daily newspapers at Albany (the Democrat Herald) and Corvallis (the Gazette Times) decided that the two papers, located only 10 miles apart on opposing sides of the Willamette, should be merged. Not an unusual idea; the Northwest has plenty of such examples. But in this case when the idea was announced, both communities erupted into such uproar that the company actually backed off, settling for a merger only of the Sunday edition.

Corvallis – as witness after witness noted at the hearing at Linn-Benton Community College at Albany pointed out – is a university and high tech town, while Albany is blue-collar, a farm and manufacturing town. And never the twain should meet in a legislative district, apparently (notwithstanding the irony of meeting at an institution called “Linn-Benton”). Although both cities are located in one Senate district.

As everywhere else, no one wanted their own community divided between districts. But also as everywhere else, almost every value judgement was countered by another. The hearings demonstrate that, among other things, it’ll be possible to offer some kind of justification to almost any map that emerges.

One witness complained about Linn County being split into three districts; another pointed out that meant a larger legislative delegation. One liked the idea of including Oregon State University (Corvallis) and the University of Oregon (Eugene) in a single congressional idea, as a community of interest; another (on the OSU faculty) urged they be kept separate, on grounds that “two voices are better than one” and that a single member of Congress for both might be put in the position of advocating for one of them at the expense of the other. Is Philomath, a small town about five miles west of Corvallis, more aligned with Corvallis, or with the rural timber and farming communities to its north and west? Both sides were argued.

It was not a heavily attended meeting, and one of the shorter (about 90 minutes long). But as at the others, it did not lack for developing ideas to chew over.

On the way out of Tillamook after a legislative redistricting hearing, I stopped for lunch at Main Street Pizza (near the cheese factory on the north side of town). The back of the menu said this was one two same-owner pizza places; the other was near the far end of a road I’d just traveled, at the small city of Banks.

That had an odd resonance: People had been spending the morning talking in considerable part about whether coastal communities like Tillamook (and Astoria, and others nearby) ought to be grouped together into as few legislative and congressional districts as possible, but together. The alternative view was that there are plenty of economic and other tie reaching inland, away from the coast. Wonder what the Main Street Pizza people would say about that?

On this rainy morning in Tillamook – is that redundant? – the people who showed up (about two dozen) for the legislative road show on redistricting mostly had the normal concerns: Don’t split our community; keep the coast intact … but as often happens, the problems of compliance have to do with the hard requirements. Such as the limited number of people in those areas, and the large numbers needed for congressional and legislative districts.

The hearing was held in Tillamook but by video (and there were some glitches) joined in Astoria, Lincoln City and Newport.

The majority view, upheld in testimony by the senator, Democrat Betsy Johnson, whose district runs from Tillamook County north to Astoria and along the Columbia past St. Helens and to the edge of Portland. “This district has a genuine feeling of community,” she said, and made a clear case for it. Told that her district is below the population level that will be needed for Senate districts in the new map, she had a ready answer for where to get the additional people: On the Portland outskirts, around Linntown.

Almost no point anyone could make came without its counters. A few people testifying railed at Portland and how its population diluted the districts occupied mostly by people in much more rural areas. One speaker from Astoria said that “sending these little fingers into Multnomah and Washington counties is unjust and unfair.”

A majority view seemed to call for concentrating representation on the coastal counties. (The coast is currently represented by three Senate districts, 1, 5 and 16, and about twice as many House districts.) “We have very unique interests here on the coast,” said one witness.

But there was a strongly-worded counterpoint. The coastal legislators have formed a Coastal Caucus who in recent sessions have become a fairly effective force for coastal issues in the Legislature. Would it be wise to cut the membership of the caucus? No clear conclusions emerged.

Nor on some other basic issues. One House district, for example, runs from just south of the Astoria city line to take in its next-door neighbor of Warrenton, and then south to Tillamook County; Astoria, and communities east nearly to Portland, are in another district. Astoria and Warrenton are all but one community (Astoria has the downtown, the restaurants and tourist center, and Warrenton and the big box stores.) Committee members asked: Is this split-up of Astoria and Warrenton a good or bad thing? Overall, people seemed to hedge. But one local speaker said the two-district approach is better: We effectively have twice the representation in the House than we otherwise would. Again, no definitive answers.

Next hearings, tomorrow: Eugene and Albany/Corvallis.

(A side note: This one was at the smallest community college in Oregon – one newly-built building – though the president said there’s room for two more, and some plan for expansion.)

One key difference between the “nullification” bills some states (Idaho, for one) have been playing around with, and the marijuana proto-legalization efforts in some states, is this: The pot law proponents aren’t making the argument that (much as they might like to) they’re able to overturn federal law in the statehouses. They know they can’t do that. They can only change state law.

But there is that question: What effect would an overturning of a state law on the subject have on federal enforcement? Signals have been mixed: Sometimes saying the feds will enforce federal anti-drug law, other times seeming to say that state law preferences will be respected.

Both chambers of the Washington Legislature have passed versions of Senate Bill 5073, which expands the legality (under state law) of medical use of marijuana and limits law enforcement action against possessors.

“Within the next week lawmakers will be considering the differing versions of this legislation and determining what provisions of state law they will enact and forward to me, as Governor, for approval or disapproval. It would be very helpful to receive clear guidance on the Department of Justice enforcement position … Also, it would be helpful if the guidance addressed whether state employees involved in inspecting the premises, auditing the records or collecting fees from the licensed dispensers, producers or processors would be immune from arrest or liability when engaged in the enforcement of this licensing law.”

Something says we’re approaching a turning point here. The response, whatever it is, should be highly illuminating – and provocative.

"Essentially, I write in the margins of motherhood—and everything else—then I work these notes into a monthly column about what it’s like raising my two young boys. Are my columns funny? Are they serious? They don’t fit into any one box neatly. ... I’ve won awards for “best humorous column” though I actually write about subjects as light as bulimia, bullying, birthing plans and breastfeeding. But also bon-bons. And barf, and birthdays."
Raising the Hardy Boys: They Said There Would Be Bon-Bons. by Nathalie Hardy; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. 238 pages. Softcover. $15.95.Raising the Hardy Boys page.

"Not a day passes that I don’t think about Vietnam. Sometimes its an aroma or just hearing the Vietnamese accent of a store clerk that triggers a memory. Unlike all too many soldiers, I never had to fire a weapon in anger. Return to civilian life was easy, but even after all these years away from the Army and Vietnam I find the experience – and knowledge – continue to shape my life daily."

Many critics said it could not be done - and it often almost came undone. Now the Snake River Basin Adjudication is done, and that improbable story is told here by three dozen of the people most centrally involved with it - judges, attorneys, legislators, engineers, water managers, water users and others in the room when the decisions were made.Through the Waters: An Oral History of the Snake River Basin Adjudication. edited by the Idaho State Bar Water Law Section and Randy Stapilus; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. 300 pages. Softcover. $16.95.See the THROUGH THE WATERS page.

Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh died on July 20, 2014; he was widely praised for steady leadership in difficult years. Writer Scott Jorgensen talks with Atiyeh and traces his background, and what others said about him. Conversations with Atiyeh. by W. Scott Jorgensen; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. 140 pages. Softcover. $14.95.The CONVERSATIONS WITH ATIYEH page.

"Salvation through public service and the purging of awful sights seen during 1500 Vietnam War helicopter rescue missions before an untimely death, as told by a devoted brother, leaves a reader pondering life's unfairness. A haunting read." Chris Carlson, Medimont Reflections. ". . . a vivid picture of his brother Jerry’s time as a Medivac pilot in Vietnam and contrasts it with the reality of the political system . . . through the lens of a blue-collar, working man made good." Mike Kennedy.One Flaming Hour: A memoir of Jerry Blackbird. by Mike Blackbird; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. 220 pages. Softcover. $15.95.See the ONE FLAMING HOUR page.

Back in Print!Frank Church was one of the leading figures in Idaho history, and one of the most important U.S. senators of the last century. From wilderness to Vietnam to investigating the CIA, Church led on a host of difficult issues. This, the one serious biography of Church originally published in 1994, is back in print by Ridenbaugh Press.Fighting the Odds: The Life of Senator Frank Church. LeRoy Ashby and Rod Gramer; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. 800 pages. Softcover. $24.95.See the FIGHTING THE ODDS page.

JOURNEY WEST

by Stephen HartgenThe personal story of the well-known editor, publisher and state legislator's travel west from Maine to Idaho. A well-written account for anyone interested in Idaho, journalism or politics.JOURNEY WEST: A memoir of journalism and politics, by Stephen Hartgen; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. $15.95, here or at Amazon.com (softcover)

NEW EDITIONSis the story of the Northwest's 226 general-circulation newspapers and where your newspaper is headed.New Editions: The Northwest's Newspapers as They Were, Are and Will Be. Steve Bagwell and Randy Stapilus; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. 324 pages. Softcover. (e-book ahead). $16.95.See the NEW EDITIONS page.

How many copies?

THE OREGON POLITICALFIELD GUIDE 2014

The Field Guide is the reference for the year on Oregon politics - the people, the districts, the votes, the issues. Compiled by a long-time Northwest political writer and a Salem Statesman-Journal political reporter.OREGON POLITICAL FIELD GUIDE 2014, by Randy Stapilus and Hannah Hoffman; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. $15.95, available right here or through Amazon.com (softcover)

THE IDAHO POLITICALFIELD GUIDE 2014

by Randy Stapilus and Marty Trillhaase is the reference for the year on Idaho Politics - the people, the districts, the votes, the issues. Written by two of Idaho's most veteran politcal observers.IDAHO POLITICAL FIELD GUIDE 2014, by Randy Stapilus and Marty Trillhaase; Ridenbaugh Press, Carlton, Oregon. $15.95, available right here or through Amazon.com (softcover)

WITHOUT COMPROMISE is the story of the Idaho State Police, from barely-functioning motor vehicles and hardly-there roads to computer and biotechnology. Kelly Kast has spent years researching the history and interviewing scores of current and former state police, and has emerged with a detailed and engrossing story of Idaho. WITHOUT COMPROMISE page.

&nbsp

How many copies?

The Old West saw few murder trials more spectacular or misunderstood than of "Diamondfield" Jack Davis. After years of brushes with the noose, Davis was pardoned - though many continued to believe him guilty. Max Black has spent years researching the Diamondfield saga and found startling new evidence never before uncovered - including the weapon and one of the bullets involved in the crime, and important documents - and now sets out the definitive story. Here too is Black's story - how he found key elements, presumed lost forever, of a fabulous Old West story. See the DIAMONDFIELD page for more.

Chris Carlson's Medimont Reflections is a followup on his biography of former Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus. This one expands the view, bringing in Carlson's take on Idaho politics, the Northwest energy planning council, environmental issues and much more. The Idaho Statesman: "a pull-back-the-curtain account of his 40 years as a player in public life in Idaho." Available here: $15.95 plus shipping.See the Medimont Reflections page

NOW IN KINDLE
&nbspIdaho 100, about the 100 most influential people ever in Idaho, by Randy Stapilus and Martin Peterson is now available. This is the book about to become the talk of the state - who really made Idaho the way it is? NOW AN E-BOOK AVAILABLE THROUGH KINDLE for just $2.99. Or, only $15.95 plus shipping.
&nbsp

WA blogs

Water rights and water wars: They’re not just a western movie any more. The Water Gates reviews water supplies, uses and rights to use water in all 50 states.242 pages, available from Ridenbaugh Press, $15.95

At a time when Americans were only exploring what are now western states, William Craig tried to broker peace between native Nez Perces and newcomers from the East. 15 years in the making, this is one of the most dramatic stories of early Northwest history. 242 pages, available from Ridenbaugh Press, $15.95

The Snake River Basin Adjudication is one of the largest water adjudications the United States has ever seen, and it may be the most successful. Here's how it happened, from the pages of the SRBA Digest, for 16 years the independent source.